-
Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update of Risk Factors in 2018.European Urology Dec 2018Bladder cancer (BC) is a significant health problem, and understanding the risk factors for this disease could improve prevention and early detection.
CONTEXT
Bladder cancer (BC) is a significant health problem, and understanding the risk factors for this disease could improve prevention and early detection.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a systematic review and summary of novel developments in epidemiology and risk factors for BC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of original articles was performed by two pairs of reviewers (M.G.C., I.J., F.E., and K.P.) using PubMed/Medline in December 2017, updated in April 2018. To address our primary objective of reporting contemporary studies, we restricted our search to include studies from the last 5yr. We subdivided our review according to specific risk factors (PICO [Population Intervention Comparator Outcome]).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our search found 2191 articles, of which 279 full-text manuscripts were included. We separated our manuscripts by the specific risk factor they addressed (PICO). According to GLOBOCAN estimates, there were 430000 new BC cases and 165000 deaths worldwide in 2012. Tobacco smoking and occupational exposure to carcinogens remain the factors with the highest attributable risk. The literature was limited by heterogeneity of data.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is emerging regarding gene-environment interactions, particularly for tobacco and occupational exposures. In some populations, incidence rates are declining, which may reflect a decrease in smoking. Standardisation of reporting may help improve epidemiologic evaluation of risk.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Bladder cancer is common worldwide, and the main risk factors are tobacco smoking and exposure to certain chemicals in the working and general environments. There is ongoing research to identify and reduce risk factors, as well as to understand the impact of genetics on bladder cancer risk.
Topics: Carcinogens, Environmental; Gene-Environment Interaction; Humans; Incidence; Occupational Exposure; Prevalence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Smoking; Time Factors; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 30268659
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Bias; Carbon Monoxide; Cohort Studies; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Middle Aged; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Vaping
PubMed: 33913154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub5 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Jan 2021With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) worldwide, the number of associated diabetic foot complications might also increase. This...
AIMS
With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) worldwide, the number of associated diabetic foot complications might also increase. This systematic review was performed to summarize published data about risk factors for the diabetic foot (DF) syndrome in order to improve the identification of high-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched for publications up to August 2019 using predefined stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Of 9,476 identified articles, 31 articles from 28 different study populations fulfilled the criteria for our evaluation. The overall quality of the studies was good, and the risk of bias was low. There was large heterogeneity among the studies concerning study protocols and patient populations analysed. A total of 79 risk factors were analysed within this review. The majority of studies described a consistently positive association with different outcomes of interest related to DF for gender, peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy, poor glycaemic control, insulin use, duration of diabetes, smoking and height. For age, hypertension, dyslipidaemia and body mass index, the results remain inconsistent.
CONCLUSION
A most up-to-date literature review resulted in glycaemic control and smoking as the only amenable risk factors with a consistently positive association for DF. Due to the high personal and financial burden associated with DF and the large heterogeneity among included studies, additional longitudinal studies in large patient populations are necessary to identify more modifiable risk factors that can be used in the prediction and prevention of DF complications.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Foot; Female; Glycemic Control; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking; Young Adult
PubMed: 33532615
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.175 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Feb 2023To systematically review the association between smoking behavior and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
To systematically review the association between smoking behavior and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
AIMS AND METHODS
PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were used to conduct this review. The two researchers independently screened the literatures, conducted the quality assessment, and data extraction according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The RevMan 5.3 was used to analysis the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) index, min saturation of oxyhemoglobin (SaO2), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, and oxygen desaturation index (DOI) and publication bias analysis to assess the effect of smoking on OSA patients. Furthermore, we performed subgroup of the severity of OSA, different countries of sample origin (western countries or eastern countries), and pack-years (PYs < 10 or PYs ≥ 20) to analyze the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in this analysis that conformed to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Totally 3654 smokers and 9796 non-smokers have participated. The meta-analysis of 13 studies demonstrated that AHI levels were significantly higher in smoker group compared with non-smoker, ESS scores were also significantly higher in smoker group compared with non-smoker, min SaO2 levels were obviously lower in smoker group compared with non-smoker, however, DOI levels hadn't significantly different between two groups. The subgroup analysis showed that there was an association between severe OSA, eastern countries, pack-years, and smoking.
CONCLUSIONS
Smoking behavior is a significant association with OSA. Heavy smokers with histories of more than 20 PYs were at a higher risk of OSA. Moreover, patient with severe OSA exhibited a significantly association with smoking compared with patients with mild or moderate OSA.
IMPLICATIONS
The relationship between smoking and OSA was controversial, especially, whether smoking increase or aggravate the risk of OSA. In our review and meta-analysis, we demonstrated that smoking behavior is a significant association with OSA. Heavy smokers with histories of more than 20 PYs were at a higher risk of OSA. Moreover, patient with severe OSA exhibited a significant association with smoking compared with patients with mild or moderate OSA. More prospective long-term follow-up studies about effect of quit smoking on OSA are recommended to establish the further relationship.
Topics: Humans; Smoking; Prospective Studies; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Tobacco Smoking; Non-Smokers
PubMed: 35922388
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntac126 -
Circulation Feb 2018Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality in women, yet many people perceive breast cancer to be the number one threat to women's health. CVD...
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality in women, yet many people perceive breast cancer to be the number one threat to women's health. CVD and breast cancer have several overlapping risk factors, such as obesity and smoking. Additionally, current breast cancer treatments can have a negative impact on cardiovascular health (eg, left ventricular dysfunction, accelerated CVD), and for women with pre-existing CVD, this might influence cancer treatment decisions by both the patient and the provider. Improvements in early detection and treatment of breast cancer have led to an increasing number of breast cancer survivors who are at risk of long-term cardiac complications from cancer treatments. For older women, CVD poses a greater mortality threat than breast cancer itself. This is the first scientific statement from the American Heart Association on CVD and breast cancer. This document will provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence of these diseases, shared risk factors, the cardiotoxic effects of therapy, and the prevention and treatment of CVD in breast cancer patients.
Topics: Age Factors; Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Survivors; Cardiovascular Diseases; Decision Making; Female; Humans; Obesity; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 29437116
DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000556 -
Endocrine Nov 2023To investigate whether maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is a risk factor for developing GDM. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To investigate whether maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is a risk factor for developing GDM.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to December 2022 to identify eligible original articles. A systematic review and meta-analysis (weighted data, random-effects model) were performed. The primary outcome was the development of GDM in pregnant women. The results were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (inverse variance method). Subgroup analysis was planned according to the maternal smoking status and GDM diagnostic criteria. Statistical heterogeneity was checked with the Chi-squared (Chi) test and the I index was used to quantify it. The studies were evaluated for publication bias.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies, including 23,849,696 pregnant women, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled OR of smoking during pregnancy compared with non-smoking (never smokers and former smokers) was 1.06 (95% CI 0.95-1.19), p = 0.30; I = 90%; Chi = 344; df=34; p < 0.001. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the two-step Carpenter-Coustan diagnostic criteria, due to the high heterogeneity among the other applied methods. The pooled OR for the Carpenter-Coustan subgroup was 1.19 (95% CI 0.95-1.49), p = 0.12; I = 63%; Chi = 27; df=10; p < 0.002. Further subgroup analysis according to maternal smoking status was not performed due to missing data.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence to support an association between maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and the risk for GDM. Universally accepted diagnostic criteria for GDM must be adopted to reduce heterogeneity and clarify the association between smoking and GDM.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Cigarette Smoking
PubMed: 37347387
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-023-03423-6 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2023Rapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. The evolving nature of cessation interventions emphasizes a strong need for knowledge synthesis.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize recent evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based smoking cessation interventions in promoting abstinence and assess nonabstinence outcome indicators, such as cigarette consumption and user satisfaction, via narrative synthesis.
METHODS
We searched for studies published in English between 2017 and June 30, 2022, in 4 databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We pooled comparable studies based on the population, follow-up time, intervention, and control characteristics. Two researchers performed an independent meta-analysis on smoking abstinence using the Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model and log risk ratio (RR) as the effect measurement. For studies not included in the meta-analysis, the outcomes were narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
A total of 464 studies were identified through an initial database search after removing duplicates. Following screening and full-text assessments, we deemed 39 studies (n=37,341 participants) eligible for this review. Of these, 28 studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, SMS or app text messaging can significantly increase both short-term (3 months) abstinence (log RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75; I=0.72%) and long-term (6 months) abstinence (log RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.04; I=8.65%), relative to minimal cessation support. The frequency of texting did not significantly influence treatment outcomes. mHealth apps may significantly increase abstinence in the short term (log RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.09-1.42; I=88.02%) but not in the long term (log RR=0.15, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.48; I=80.06%), in contrast to less intensive cessation support. In addition, personalized or interactive interventions showed a moderate increase in cessation for both the short term (log RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.94; I=66.50%) and long term (log RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53; I=73.42%). In contrast, studies without any personalized or interactive features had no significant impact. Finally, the treatment effect was similar between trials that used biochemically verified or self-reported abstinence. Among studies reporting outcomes besides abstinence (n=20), a total of 11 studies reported significantly improved nonabstinence outcomes in cigarette consumption (3/14, 21%) or user satisfaction (8/19, 42%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review of 39 randomized controlled trials found that recent eHealth interventions might promote smoking cessation, with mHealth being the dominant approach. Despite their success, the effectiveness of such interventions may diminish with time. The design of more personalized interventions could potentially benefit future studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022347104; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=347104.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Health Behavior; Smoking; Text Messaging; Telemedicine
PubMed: 37505802
DOI: 10.2196/45111 -
BMC Public Health Mar 2015Smoking in pregnancy is known to be associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet there is a high prevalence of smoking among pregnant women in many... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking in pregnancy is known to be associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet there is a high prevalence of smoking among pregnant women in many countries, and it remains a major public health concern. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide contemporary estimates of the association between maternal smoking in pregnancy and the risk of stillbirth.
METHODS
We searched four databases namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info and Web of Science for all relevant original studies published until 31(st) December 2012. We included observational studies that measured the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of stillbirth.
RESULTS
1766 studies were screened for title analysis, of which 34 papers (21 cohorts, 8 case controls and 5 cross sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis smoking during pregnancy was significantly associated with a 47% increase in the odds of stillbirth (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.37, 1.57, p < 0.0001). In subgroup analysis, smoking 1-9 cig/day and ≥10 cig/day was associated with an 9% and 52% increase in the odds of stillbirth respectively. Subsequently, studies defining stillbirth at ≥ 20 weeks demonstrated a 43% increase in odds for smoking mothers compared to mothers who do not smoke, (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32, 1.54, p < 0.0001), whereas studies with stillbirth defined at ≥ 24 weeks and ≥ 28 weeks showed 58% and 33% increase in the odds of stillbirth respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our review confirms a dose-response effect of maternal smoking in pregnancy on risk of stillbirth. To minimise the risk of stillbirth, reducing current smoking prevalence in pregnancy should continue to be a key public health high priority.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Risk; Smoking; Stillbirth
PubMed: 25885887
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1552-5 -
International Journal of Epidemiology Jun 2017Tobacco smoking harms health, so why do people smoke and fail to quit? An explanation originating in behavioural economics suggests a role for time-discounting, which... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tobacco smoking harms health, so why do people smoke and fail to quit? An explanation originating in behavioural economics suggests a role for time-discounting, which describes how the value of a reward, such as better health, decreases with delay to its receipt. A large number of studies test the relationship of time-discounting with tobacco outcomes but the temporal pattern of this relationship and its variation according to measurement methods remain unclear. We review the association between time-discounting and smoking across (i) the life course, from initiation to cessation, and (ii) diverse discount measures.
METHODS
We identified 69 relevant studies in Web of Science and PubMed. We synthesized findings across methodologies and evaluated discount measures, study quality and cross-disciplinary fertilization.
RESULTS
In 44 out of 54 studies, smokers more greatly discounted the future than non-smokers and, in longitudinal studies, higher discounting predicted future smoking. Smokers with lower time-discount rates achieved higher quit rates. Findings were consistent across studies measuring discount rates using hypothetical monetary or cigarette reward scenarios. The methodological quality of the majority of studies was rated as 'moderate' and co-citation analysis revealed an isolation of economics journals and a dearth of studies in public health.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate yet consistent evidence that high time-discounting is a risk factor for smoking and unsuccessful cessation. Policy scenarios assuming a flat rate of population discounting may inadequately capture smokers' perceptions of costs and benefits.
Topics: Delay Discounting; Health Policy; Humans; Risk Factors; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 27818375
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw233 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Aug 2022There is little consensus regarding effective digital health interventions for diverse populations, which is due in part to the difficulty of quantifying the impact of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is little consensus regarding effective digital health interventions for diverse populations, which is due in part to the difficulty of quantifying the impact of various media and content and the lack of consensus on evaluating dosage and outcomes. In particular, digital smoking behavior change intervention is an area where consistency of measurement has been a challenge because of emerging products and rapid policy changes. This study reviewed the contents and outcomes of digital smoking interventions and the consistency of reporting to inform future research.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to systematically review digital smoking behavior change interventions and evaluate the consistency in measuring and reporting intervention contents, channels, and dose and response outcomes.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and PAIS databases were used to search the literature between January and May 2021. General and journal-based searches were combined. All records were imported into Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation) and duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts were screened by 4 trained reviewers to identify eligible full-text literature. The data synthesis scheme was designed based on the concept that exposure to digital interventions can be divided into intended doses that were planned by the intervention and enacted doses that were completed by participants. The intended dose comprised the frequency and length of the interventions, and the enacted dose was assessed as the engagement. Response measures were assessed for behaviors, intentions, and psychosocial outcomes. Measurements of the dose-response relationship were reviewed for all studies.
RESULTS
A total of 2916 articles were identified through a database search. Of these 2916 articles, the title and abstract review yielded 324 (11.11%) articles for possible eligibility, and 19 (0.65%) articles on digital smoking behavior change interventions were ultimately included for data extraction and synthesis. The analysis revealed a lack of prevention studies (0/19, 0%) and dose-response studies (3/19, 16%). Of the 19 studies, 6 (32%) reported multiple behavioral measures, and 5 (23%) reported multiple psychosocial measures as outcomes. For dosage measures, 37% (7/19) of studies used frequency of exposure, and 21% (4/19) of studies mentioned the length of exposure. The assessment of clarity of reporting revealed that the duration of intervention and data collection tended to be reported vaguely in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS
This review revealed a lack of studies assessing the effects of digital media interventions on smoking outcomes. Data synthesis showed that measurement and reporting were inconsistent across studies, illustrating current challenges in this field. Although most studies focused on reporting outcomes, the measurement of exposure, including intended and enacted doses, was unclear in a large proportion of studies. Clear and consistent reporting of both outcomes and exposures is needed to develop further evidence in intervention research on digital smoking behavior change.
Topics: Humans; Internet; Smoking; Text Messaging; Tobacco Smoking
PubMed: 36006682
DOI: 10.2196/38470